This stuff was used in the SCHV (small caliber/high velocity) trials of the mid 50's. specifically for the .224 Springfield Infantry rifle. Obviously it eventually lost out to 5.56 that we know today. In 1958 Remington introduced the cartridge commercially as the .222 Remington Magnum. To my knowledge only two or so rifles were chambered for the round.

Note the lack of headstamp on this experimental round.

Attached Images

	IMG_1070 (2).jpg (90.7 KB, 147 views)
	IMG_1071 (2).jpg (80.0 KB, 151 views)
	IMG_1072 (2).jpg (125.7 KB, 151 views)

The original SCHV in the early 1950's was, as I recall reading, converted M1 Carbines with a shortened 222 Rem case.

Later Melvin Johnson necked down the 30 Carbine case to create the 5.7mm Spitfire.

I've not made a detailed comparison, but the 22 TCM looks very close to the original SCHV cartridge.

FWIW, the 22 TCM is a shortened and necked down 223 case.

__________________
213th FBINA

Sure - with the 223 being so universal, the 222 is not seen or heard of much, but it is the parent of the 223 {and 222 Mag}.
Thye original testing of the future M16 was with the 222, but the military wanted a bit ore performance, and the future 223 and 222 Mag came about.

In 1952 or 3, when the original SCHV project was done, the 222 was the only one available.

So while the 22 TCM is based on the 223, cases could be formed from 222, 221, 222 Mag as well as some others.

Interesting bit of history there. Thanks for posting.

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

Isn’t the .222 Remington magnum the parent case for the .17 Remington?

Just as a side, IMO the .222 is still much more accurate than the .223. Then again, it might just be the rifles which the .222 is being shot from.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

The 17 Rem is based on te 222 Ma, but slightly shorter.
The 204 Ruger uses a full length 222 Mag necked down.
The 222 was popular in benchrest way back when but the military wasn't interested in utmost accuracy, but acceptable accuracy.

I remember reading about 5.56 & 7.62 GI development. It was stated one drawback of 222 in full auto weapons was the long neck. In the case ( no pun intended) of 300 Savage the neck was to short.
The 222 was record holder for years. I still think it more accurate cartridge than 223/ 5.56. However some scribe said there aren’t any bad cartridges only inaccurate rifles.

The other big advantage of the old 222 is that it is ultra mild to shoot, fairly quiet and in my mind the best 250 yard cartridge ever made.

The 222 was THE bench rest round for years. The fact that it is so accurate didn't go away when the 223 came on the scene. To this day, one of my favorite guns is a Remington model 700 varmint in 222. I've had it for years and it is very forgiving, shooting just about any 224 bullet between 45 and 55 grains and with just about any powder in range. It's one of those guns that will still be in my collection when they cart me away.

That box of 222 Mag. Experimental is really neat and is a good addition to an ammo collection.

The 7.62 NATO/.308 is essentially the post-WWI .300 Savage but with a longer case neck and a slightly less sharp shoulder angle. The military liked the .300 design but decided that a longer neck was desirable to more firmly hold the bullet if used in full auto weapons. The .300 Savage cartridge can be fired in any .308 Win rifle. I have done that. .300 Savage cases can be easily formed from .308 brass. Never pass up a good price on a .300 Savage rifle because of ammunition scarcity.

The .222 was Mike Walkers baby, he was the director of the Remington custom gun shop and bench rest shooter, inventor and experimenter extraordinary.

Mike Walker also designed the rifle that went with the cartridge, the Remington Model 722 and the longer Remington Model 721. I have had both and still have a 722 chambered for the 222 Remington Magnum. Try asking for that cartridge at a gun store! The hand you a box of rimfire! And then argue with you! It is always a good bit of fun, so I bring along some empties to show them.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

I happen to have a first year 722 in 222 and a first year 222 mag. I have divested myself of the 22-250 I had. The 222 mag will do most of what the 22-250 will do...at least for my needs. With no wind the 222 will do for coyotes to 300 yds. The mag to 350. PDs to about 250 and 300 respectively.Harder to hit. If I have to shoot a wolf...or deer/antelope I'll use the 243. BTW Mike Walker was a nice fellow too. I think he was also one of the movers and shakers for Remington to adopt the 22-250...known as the 22 Varminter

In the late 1960’s, I bought a 222 Remington from one of Dad’s clients. At the time I lived in a house on the edge of a lake that had a zillion geese.

I remember sitting in front of a Cottonwood plinking geese with that 222. I got pretty good hitting them in the head from 100-150 yards.

The other guys in the house learned to like roast goose. After all, I cooked it and it was free.

I wonder how many Remington 600’s were converted to 223?

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

I've been using 19.8 of IMR 4198 and a Sierra 52 grain BTHP for about 50 years. Shoots great out of everything from a Savage 342 to a Remington 788 and Cooper M21 single shot. I can get smaller groups on paper with other loads, but that one hits whatever I'm aiming at out to 250 yds. Kind of annoying when the 788 does better than the Cooper.

At one time, IMR 4198 was considered by bench rest shooters to be the best powder for both .222 and .223. Maybe it still is. I have been away from bench rest shooting for 30+ years. I still have a Savage 112 Series J varmint rifle in .223, and have determined that 21.5 grains of 4198 with 52 grain bullets surpasses the performance of any other load in it. The Savage is not in the bench rest running, but is fully capable of consistently producing 0.5-0.75 MOA 10-shot groups with 4198 loads.

I subscribe to .222 affliction in a big way! One of mine is an old benchrest gun that's been put out to pasture; the varmint pasture. It's taken a lot of them over the years. Built on a Sako L-46 single shot action with a heavy barrel, it's definitely not a "mobile" gun. So for walking around varminting I use sporters in .222 Rem. Despite the rifle's age it's still nicely accurate. It has been suggested by a number of "experts" that I rechamber it for .223 Remington. Not gonna happen! No way!

One of the guys on Accurate Shooter is hosting a Dust off your Deuce postal competition. I entered the old Sako (and me). Should be interesting . . . .

Without further ado, here she is:

Attached Images

IMG_2873.jpg (103.6 KB, 141 views)

I also use 4198 of both flavors but prefer the old H4198. Not many use the powder these days because of all the new wonder powders. Typically buy it for about 10 bucks a pound. Having had a few 223s I seem to feel the caliber is not as accurate as the average 222 or 222 mag. Close but no ceegar. And I also feel that in the 222 I prefer the Rem 6 1/2 primer. The 222 is typically a medium pressure round.The 7 1/2 primer was really developed for the mag round when Remington was working on the new military round. Of course, my thinking may be incorrect. Having shot a "few thousand" with 4198 and the 6 1/2 primers I've never blown even one primer. Because they aren't recommended anymore I can find the 6 1/2 fairly cheap. At the last gun show I bought a thousand for 30 dollars. But in the mag round I usually use 7 1/2s or CCI BRs. BTW I was recently cleaning in the vault and found 960 CCI BRs on a shelf..price on them was 1.59 per 100. Also the old 722 222 has had many thousand rounds through it and it is still more accurate than the guy holding it. But that may not be saying much about my abilities

I've shot .222s for many years and still have two older Sakos and a Reminton 722. I've used far more Winchester brass than anything else, but Remington has been fine, too. About ten or so years ago, a friend gave me a sizable quantity of .222 brass that had been given to him. It was all sized and much of it was primed. I'm pretty sure all the brass was from the '60s.

The old brass, Remington and Winchester was much lighter in weight than the newer Winchester I had purchased probably fifteen years ago. Weight differences were roughly 10% on all the brass. That's not much on a large cartridge case, but it's significant with the .222. Powder charges had to be adjusted for safety and to keep velocity the same for all case weights.

From what I'm told H322 is the chosen powder for .222 target rounds. It seems to be the most accurate. Saying this I'm now wondering why I have not tried H322 in .223 target loads???

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

I have used H322 in the 222 and 223. I find it a little more touchy than 4198. You also can't reach the higher velocity of the military round. But then you can't quite do it with 4198 either. IMO I don't think the 223 is quite the equal of the 222 or 222 Mag in accuracy. For many years the best bullet for accuracy in almost any 22 cal rifle was the Sierra 52 grain HPBT. I have been loading the 40 gr Nosler BT bullet for coyotes in the 222. It is more accurate than the Hornady VMax. Out to about 275 yrs that bullet makes one hole and blows up inside. Luckily I don't have to skin them.

Many powders work very well in the .222. I've used more Reloder 7 than anything else along with the Sierra 50 grain BLitz.

Ken Waters comprehensive .222 update article in "Pet Loads" is certainly among the best ever written on this cartridge and it has a lot of load data.

Since several members knew of Mike Walker I will add my experience with him. Remington was owned by the DuPont Company and I spent my working years in a DuPont plant that was in this area and we had a nice 300 yd rifle range on the property. He moved to this area in his later years and maybe because the range was available to him, can’t say for sure about that but I had the pleasure of getting to know him. Being a bench rest shooter he was always on the range early in the morning for the no wind condition and he was always by himself. He passed away in 2013 at 101 in an assisted living facility nearby, his obituary is listed as Merle Walker and it’s still available on line. It’s lengthy and has a lot of information about him if any one is interested..

I have not shot my rifles in years, and probably own nothing later than 1980. In about 1986, I got my hands in a Belgium Browning Safari grade heavy barreled 222 built on a short Sako action. The metal is perfect, and there a few use marks in the stock, but it is my favorite rifle. Soft recoil and you can cover 5 rounds with a nickel at 100 yards. It was a lot of fun tuning loads to that rifle. It has a vintage 4-12X Redfield on it.

__________________
Pete
I ain't no fortunate son

For former long-time PRECISION SHOOTING readers, they are well aware of how much influence Mike Walker had on benchrest shooting and many other facets of modern rifle accuracy. Many of his accomplishments were covered in the PS pages over decades.